Like the derided and ultimately failed Treaty Principles Bill, the Bill aimed at improvements in health and safety measures was introduced by Act New Zealand.
And, like its predecessor, it is hard to see what the point of it is, who was calling for it and who wants it to succeed, other than some politicians of the Right.
It is another piece of legislation which seems purely designed to take New Zealand backwards.
Health and safety requirements have been tightened up drastically in the past few decades. The Cave Creek platform collapse in 1995, which killed 14 people, sparked a royal commission and changes which allowed government departments to be prosecuted and fined for breaching the 1992 Health and Safety in Employment Act.
After 29 workers died in the Pike River Mine disaster in 2010, Worksafe New Zealand was created. The Health and Safety at Work Act of 2015 was brought in with a tougher duty of care for businesses to protect all workers on site and allow bosses to be fined or potentially imprisoned for ignoring that requirement.
While Ms van Velden obviously believes the changes are necessary to ease compliance costs by exempting businesses with fewer than 20 workers from having to manage non-critical safety risks, opponents are warning it will lead to more injuries and employer shortcuts if it is introduced, and it will only be a matter of time before another workplace disaster occurs.
In the vanguard of opposition are Sonya Rockhouse and Anna Osborne, who lost son Ben and husband Milton respectively at Pike River.
Mrs Rockhouse pointed out at a rally this week that Ms van Velden admitted she still hadn’t read the Pike River Royal Commission report but felt ‘‘equipped to suggest these unsafe and absurd amendments’’.
For someone with such strong views, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters is giving the Bill’s opponents surprisingly muted support. He says he is forced to support it because of the coalition agreement but promises to get rid of it, if he can, after the election.
If he believes lives are at risk from this change, isn’t that more important than supporting a coalition agreement in its final months?
Unfortunately, it seems Ms van Velden is not the sort of minister who will listen to public concerns and act on them. She appears to be bringing the same lack of empathy to this debate as over the controversial changes to the pay equity system which she oversaw.
South Dunedin common sense
When you are talking decades to get something done, a few extra months to firm up the groundwork is probably reasonable.
That is especially the case if it allows everyone to pause and take a breath, and facilitates longer and fuller public consultation.
The South Dunedin Future programme has hardly been out of the spotlight over the past week.
On Thursday, Dunedin city councillors followed the lead set by their Otago Regional Council colleagues the day before in accepting a fourth option as a possibility for protecting the flood-prone suburbs on the flat by 2100.
Both councils have added a ‘‘pipes and pumps’’ option to the ‘‘protect’’, ‘‘restore’’ and ‘‘reshape’’ possibilities released a week ago — work which already included work on pumps and pipes.
The water issues facing South Dunedin and adjacent suburbs are not limited to sea-level rise and stronger storms alone.
As Dunedin Mayor Sophie Barker pointed out, rising groundwater levels and ageing infrastructure all play their part in making the future uncertain for 14,000 residents.
It may be that pipes and pumps simply will not cut it.
However, it makes sense to further consider engineering solutions as well, given the other options could lead to 1200 or more homes being demolished.
